Big game hunting with air guns

I think we can agree, that regardless of weapon…. the shooter is the limiting factor.

I think we can also agree that a hole through both lungs is sure death… unless raccoons, with their opposable thumbs and propensity for handwashing, have somehow become adept field trauma surgeons.

No. I disagree. The weapon is the limiting factor. Both in animal size and range.

Any fool knows that.

.....😁
 
So grandpa’s ‘06 in the grass-bag trumps a .30 cal slug in the brain pan?

A guy who can’t hit water if he fell out of boat… should be shooting at deer with a bow?

A 7 Mag will reliably kill deer well past 1/2 mile…. I’ve seen it. But, should everyone with a 7 mag be shooting at that range?

Why not?

After all… “weapon is the limiting factor”….

That’s just plain stupid… or par for the Bedrock course I recon.
 
I think we need to expand the "shooter is the limitation" thought a little to agree. I think if you use a reasonably suitable tool for the task then I would completely agree that I am the primary limitation. I include the first part because of my experience with a 5 fpe pump up on a squirrel. I hit the shoulder and it did not do the job. It broke it but did not reach the chest and the squirrel took days to expire (I found it dead in the yard days later). A shoulder shot was maybe part of the issue but I still think 5 fpe for squirrels is not a reasonably suitable tool. Even a 12 fpe airgun can clearly work well but in my opinion becomes more dependent on the shooter to get reliably good results. Getting up to 18-30 fpe works better for me and I think it would for most of us. Squirrels do not sit still for long (absent baiting which is not legal where I live) and that and my shooting skill means shots will not always be as well placed as I want. More fpe helps make them drop immediately regardless. I hit one squirrel in the jaw joint with a 25 caliber pellet at about 30 fpe. It dropped immediately regardless of the fact that I totally missed the brain. It crushed the skull. A little more fpe definitely helps get the desired results. Squirrels do not require 40-60 fpe but 30 is not overkill to me.

My inability to consistently hit squirrels in the brain or lungs makes me leery of using 40+ fpe airguns to shoot an animal the size of a deer or a hog in the brain with them. I think they would immediately kill the animal if I do but if I miss even a little, the animal is going to die a slow death. That is not ethical hunting in my opinion. Now with a 500 fpe 45 caliber, a clean kill if I miss a little seems to me to be still a reasonable expectation.

While you can argue that the limitation is me using a 40-60 fpe airgun to brain shoot a hog I think the tool is a potential contributor. It is not just squirrels that move sometimes. Our tools need a little margin for us or their movement. That is what I mean by using a "reasonably suitable tool". Not something that works only in very limited circumstances. That is part of the problem I have with some of the published tables on this topic.
 
IMHO The shooter and the gun meet in the middle.

An experienced hunter can kill a moose with a 17 cal springer. It won't be pretty. But he can get it done. I'm not saying it would be "ethical" (whatever that may mean).

A new guy with a 7mm magnum will have a rough time unless he's shooting farm deer from a stand over an oat patch. He does his best and gets a gut shot. That may be perfectly "ethical". He just screwed up his shot.

Only experienced hunters should try and take big game with primitive weapons, bows or airguns. It may take a lot more than basic shooting skills to recover the animal. And recovery IMHO is paramount to locating an animal and getting a shot.

Many times I have passed on a clean shot at a trophy animal. It is usually because topography, vegetation or distance back to the truck made recovery difficult. If I hadn't passed on the shot I would have risked loosing the animal.

There are all types of hunting situations that lend themselves to an air rifle. Some that do not. So it is a fit between the shooter and the gun. But even more so the situation.

Shooting deer from a blind at close range is one thing. Spot and stalk is a completely different ball game. Flush hunting quite another. There are topography and vegetation to consider. It's not all about joules or accuracy or the technical ability to bring down an animal.

Then there are property boundaries to consider. If you double lung a deer and he jumps over the fence onto old man Winklers plot you can't get to him to recover. If you shoot that hog at the edge of a thicket you aren't going to recover. If you shoot a grouse off a high ponderosa limb he will die instantly. But he will sail across a canyon it will take a day to get around.

It all has to come together in a workable plan. That's hunting. If the animal drops like a stone on the first shot the rest doesn't matter. But if he dosent then a hunter can handle it. That's what separates the sheep from the goats.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JimD
An experienced hunter can kill a moose with a 17 cal springer. It won't be pretty. But he can get it done. I'm not saying it would be "ethical" (whatever that may mean).

Just when I think you can’t possibly say anything dumber…. You drop bombs like this.

Please tell me the shot placement necessary to kill a moose with a .177 Springer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bandito
Ok ShortBus Bob….

You’re the guy who stated you could kill a moose with a .177 Springer… but failed to elaborate.

Yes. I am that guy.

And you are a troll who derails every conversation I'm having with someone.

You are the guy that insults, snipes, takes statements out of context, and argues with everything I post. You've been doing it for weeks.

I'll gladly have an intelligent conversation with you about any subject you like. We can debate respectfully.

But I won't do this.
 
News Flash: You aren’t having a “conversation”, you’re saying dumb stuff on an open forum.

You stated a moose could be killed with a .177 Springer. I did not take that out of context. Yes, you did say it would be “unethical”… but you’ve failed to substantiate how it could ever happen.

Don’t say dumb stuff on an open forum, if you don’t want to get called on it… that seems pretty simple. I’m not trolling anyone, just pointing out the egregious fallacies in several of your assertions.

I think you’re a fairly funny and eloquent guy… I just also happen to think that you tend to talk about things you haven’t entirely thought through. Had you said “you can kill a moose with a .22lr, but it wouldn’t be ethical”… I wouldn’t have had an issue. But, Fonzie, you decided to jump the shark.

Maybe, you should have “conversations” in private, so as not to expose the tender underbelly of your air rifle opinions.
 
In a discussion of $3000 airguns the thread started drifting into use of airguns on large game. Deer and larger game. A view was expressed that it is not very ethical because airguns do not generate shock and the theory is that means a slow death for the game. I do not agree with a lot of that view.

It is true that airgun velocities are like handgun velocities or black powder gun velocities. The tissue in our quarry will expand much more slowly due to the lower velocity and it will be able to collapse back eliminating any shock damage. I think looking at ballistic gel projectile paths for airguns is misleading because of this. But when the only guns were black powder velocity was similarly limited and lots of large animals died. I used to live in PA and have a left handed flintlock for their primitive weapons season. I did not kill a deer with it but I am confident a 45 caliber lead ball will cleanly take a deer at close range. It has been done many, many times. It can break the shoulder bone to get to the lungs.

Some enjoy using handguns to take large game. Even a 44 magnum is too slow to create shock damage to animals. So it kills by making a hole just like an airgun or a black powder rifle. Game up to and including Cape buffalo have been taken with them. I would not attempt that but to argue they won't take a deer because they do not generate shock is just incorrect.

When I shoot a squirrel with my 177, 22, or 25 caliber airguns I usually get DRT results. There is no shock. I use only domed pellets so they do not even expand. They make a big enough hole in the head or chest and the animal dies in seconds.

Agun fpe can be as high as 1200 fpe which most would admit is enough for deer. But most are much lower. Airguns have to be large in caliber to make fairly high fpe but that means their projectiles do not need to expand to make a large enough hole to kill a deer. I tend to agree that most of us should not use guns which will only work if we make a good brain shot. Not a head shot, a brain shot. But with a 45 caliber airgun we can be right up there with blackpowder guns and large bore handguns.ir

State game commissions exist to ensure the animals are taken responsibly. Most allow airguns. They looked at the evidence and decided they are big enough.

I only use airguns for small game but with the right gun, I am sure they will ethically take large game. Not at hundreds of yards but cleanly and ethically.

Who's airgun is putting out 1,200 foot pounds?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bandito
This is an interesting conversation. But we have to watch when we start painting with a broad brush and pointing fingers. There is a percentage of guys with any weapon that go above and beyond learning its capabilities. I think where long term accomplished hunters get nervous is with bandwagon hunters. The guy who heads out west to hunt and buys the most giant caliber just in case he shoots an elk in the a$$. Or the guy who thinks airguns are cool so he will try to kill a deer with it because it’s legal in his state. We all have seen the underbelly of hunting from archery to rifles. But we have to understand that no conversation on a forum is going to stop it. Will my .30 airgun kill a deer? Yes. But I won’t do it because of where and how I hunt. I’m not going for a brain shot on a big game animal. Period. I have more confidence with my bow at those ranges because of massive hemorrhaging and a good blood trail. But me preaching from a stump isn’t going to stop a guy who lives by a different code from trying what he wants to try.

But I respect guys speaking their peace and not being afraid to do it. At least I know who I’m talking to moving forward. Good or bad.
 
This is an interesting conversation. But we have to watch when we start painting with a broad brush and pointing fingers. There is a percentage of guys with any weapon that go above and beyond learning its capabilities. I think where long term accomplished hunters get nervous is with bandwagon hunters. The guy who heads out west to hunt and buys the most giant caliber just in case he shoots an elk in the a$$. Or the guy who thinks airguns are cool so he will try to kill a deer with it because it’s legal in his state. We all have seen the underbelly of hunting from archery to rifles. But we have to understand that no conversation on a forum is going to stop it. Will my .30 airgun kill a deer? Yes. But I won’t do it because of where and how I hunt. I’m not going for a brain shot on a big game animal. Period. I have more confidence with my bow at those ranges because of massive hemorrhaging and a good blood trail. But me preaching from a stump isn’t going to stop a guy who lives by a different code from trying what he wants to try.

But I respect guys speaking their peace and not being afraid to do it. At least I know who I’m talking to moving forward. Good or bad.


Well put brother.

If I was painting with a broad brush and got any on you I apologize. I've read your posts and recognize your experience. Your opinions are always respectful and valued.